July 23, 2007

TPM Café's Greg Sargent tries to respond to various bloggers, including me, who wrote about his blog post featuring a video clip of Giuliani supposedly "unhinged" and "screaming" the word "bullshit." Here's Greg in his new post:

Really, it almost seems at times as if the wingnut bloggers delight in setting themselves up for mockery and parody.

Typical beginning for a lefty blogpost. He assumes anyone not on his side is a "wingnut" -- someone who barely deserves any regard from his readers. (Hint to Sargent: I voted for Russ Feingold (every time he's run), Al Gore, Bill Clinton (twice), etc. etc.) And he assumes his opponents have written nothing that will require much of any argument from him -- it's already just a set-up for "mockery and parody." Oh, Greg, you moonbat, your lame post is beyond parody because it is already its own parody. (Hint: I'm just pretending to write like a lefty blogger for fun. I don't really write like that. But I note how damned easy it is.)

The latest winger pratfall-in-the-making concerns the video we posted the other day of Rudy screaming "bulls#$t" at a cop rally 15 years ago.

Pratfall-in-the-making? Greg, you've started off this post on your ass. Get to the point.

Bloggers Michelle Malkin, Ann Althouse, and Ace of Spades are all taking shots at us for posting the vid, arguing that it was absurd to do so because it has no significance in any way.

It's the usual ham-fisted and heavy-handed stuff....

And your post is the usual wheel-spinning. Are you paid by the word? Did you go to the Glenn Greenwald Summer Camp for Lefty Bloggers?

Althouse says we're simply "trying to hurt" Rudy (sniffle, sniffle) and even tries to claim that Rudy isn't "screaming," but rather is "shouting" (now there's a critical distinction).

Greg apparently doesn't know the first thing about gender studies. "Screaming" is a feminizing word. [ADDED: "Screaming" also calls to mind the way that word was used to bring down Howard Dean in 2004. Presidential candidates can't "scream," we learned, so you may think that if you can say he "screamed," you can destroy him the way Dean was destroyed. (I defended Dean about the scream at the time, by the way.)]

Obviously, there's a difference between "screaming" and "shouting." And you left out your word "unhinged." You said he was "unhinged" and "screaming." You know damned well -- unless you're incredibly inept -- that those words conveyed an image of a crazy, out-of-control guy. "Screaming" itself connotes loss of control -- which would be terrible problem for a President -- and when you've paired it with the word "unhinged," the connotation isn't the slightest bit subtle. You are trying to get readers to think that Giuliani is emotionally unfit to be President. If you had accurately described how Giuliani sounded in the video -- shouting the word -- it wouldn't have twisted the reader's mind the way you wanted. I called you on your deception. So that damned well is a "critical distinction."

Now get up off your ass and write a real response to me. I'm sick of these cranked out non-responses that pretend you've suffered no real attack. You have!

Memo to wingnuts: There's a little something about Rudy's "bulls#$t" moment that we know and that you don't know....

Blah blah blah... Sargent brings up the context of the video, which he didn't give in his original post, but which the NYT covered in an article yesterday. Since I updated my post as soon as I saw the article and included the relevant excerpt, this part of Greg's post is entirely meaningless.

Note to wingnuts: This moment actually had great resonance for African Americans in New York for many, many years. It was a key chapter in the history of both race relations in the city and of Rudy's own rise to power. And Rudy's own campaign internally conceded that this was really, really bad -- that he'd sought to rile up an audience carrying signs saying things about Dinkins like "dump the washroom attendant" without denouncing their crude displays of racism. This is all actually common knowledge to lots of people. You could have established this basic history and context with five minutes on Google or Nexis before holding forth on it.

You should have put that in your original post, too, loser. We bloggers were responding to your post, not generating new material. Your post wasn't about the larger context. You know damned well that you just thought you could make conservatives tremble because the guy yelled "bullshit." We called bullshit on you for that. You're now bringing up new material, after it became really easily available in the NYT. I saw that too and blogged an update as soon as I saw it.

You mock me for saying you were "simply 'trying to hurt' Rudy (sniffle, sniffle)," but I was right. You had no decent substance to your post. It was nothing but ooh, Rudy said a bad word... tee hee... that's gonna shock conservatives. That was and is bullshit. I wasn't saying don't hurt my guy -- which is what you're implying with that "sniffle, sniffle" attempt at mockery. I was saying you had no substance. I was right! Bringing up this racial context after the fact doesn't change the deceptiveness of your original post.

But let's say it's not even your fault that you didn't know anything about this. And let's even concede that we should have spelled the history and context out better in our initial post. Now that you actually know a little something about the topic at hand, isn't it time for some follow-up posts explaining to your readers whether the moment's worthy of attention and what people should think of it?

Update: It gets better. Althouse has now linked to The Times piece -- with no comment at all as to whether she now thinks the moment is significant.

Greg, I didn't merely link to the NYT article. I put up the entire relevant passage. So it is absolutely clear that I think it's significant. You're grasping at straws with that "no comment at all" business. Your "update" shows that you don't have the balls to admit you got it wrong about me.

Now, do a proper update and apologize to me. If you don't, you are conceding that you are indeed a deceptive, manipulative writer.

UPDATE: David Wiegel at Reason.com criticizes my original post saying "[s]keptical (mostly conservative) bloggers thought Sargent meant that the word 'bullshit' would alienate conservative voters." Well, David, Sargent quite obviously did mean that! If you're going to criticize me you'd better refer to the post I was writing about, not some later post full of new material. Sargent's original point about the video was only that it "might tell us something about the reliability and temperament of this man who is asking us to make him our next Commander in Chief -- especially now that he's trying to win the support of GOP 'values voters.'" There's not a blessed word about race in that. So I'm calling bullshit on you too, David.

From what I can tell, being a conservative and/or republican is enough to qualify someone as "unhinged" in the mind of the far left. It doesn't really matter what Giuliani said. The fact that he raised his voice is enough to call attention to him as "unhinged".

It's exactly the same issue with Howard Dean. He wasn't unhinged either (unless you were on the far right).

I think you're right to call him on it. Unfortunately, you're arguments are probably falling on deaf ears. Or would that be blind eyes, in this context?

Althouse-I don't get the demands for apologies. I've noticed you doing this before, and I'm puzzled as to why. You don't actually believe the people you want apologies from are going to produce them, do you?

I looked at the video again. If I were running for Prez, I'd have circulated it myself.

I love the reference to this statement: "“Giuliani’s shrieking performance at the cop rally may be his greatest political liability this year."

They are clearly trying to resurrect it as his greatest political liability this year. But what they failed to recall was that that conclsuion was totally wrong and Giuliani won in spite of (and I would argue because of that 'preformance'.

You haven't noticed Ann's persecution complex before? If anything Ann should be gratified that her (and other wingnuts') criticism was acknowledged and the screaming/shouting was put in greater context.

Also, Ann's double standards are on full display here, if anyone goes back and reads her commentary on Bill Clinton's interview with Chris Wallace.

When Democrats get angry they're losing it, but Giuliani's raving about David Dinkins being to blame for all the NYPD's ills (in front of "Fire the Washroom Attendant" signs) is just strong leadership.

As an aside, when exactly did it become acceptable to drop the important political-spectral qualifier from the word "right winger"? Every time I read some left-winger prate on about "wingers" and "wingnuts", I get right put out by the sloppy disregard for linguistic accuracy. Without telling us in whichwing their boogey-man of the day lurks, how do they expect the appropriate rabble of either wing to know when to howl in mock outrage or cower in mild fear?

I suppose it's a nuance that's to be understood from context clues; Hello! You're on TPM Café! Would he be calling lefties "wingers" and "wingnuts"? But it's still annoying because it assumes things about me as the reader that I don't think should be assumed. Like, that I agree with the writer. When did people forget that they need to persuade through their writing?

Doyle: Hint to Ann: Stop using Feingold as a shield to defend yourself.

As well as Al Gore and Bill Clinton? Disingenuous of you to ignore that she supported them too.

You pulled for the Republicans in the last election. You're constantly attacking Democrats.

She didn't pull for Republicans, she pulled for the side that takes the war on terror seriously. She attacks weasel Dems because she's an honest Democrat who's concerned when her party veers towards the cliff.

You get most of your traffic from Instapundit.

Only because she calls out the Lefty Moonbats when they deserve it. And don't you just hate the way she disturbs your little nutroots echo chamber?

Look, no one at TPM is suggesting that the video should disqualify Rudy from running. They are not responsible for proving to anyone that the video depicts a "scream" rather than a "shout" or any such nonsense.

They merely highlighted the video because it shows Rudy flashing his electoral go-to move: demonizing brown people, and doing so in the highly agitated manner of some of the 20th century's most reviled dictators.

But if that's what you're looking for in a presidential candidate, no one's telling you it's necessarily a bad thing.

Typical "leftie" bullshit. You took him apart like a cheap suit and he doesn't like it. This means one of two things, or both. He is either trying to appeal to like-minded lefties as his primary audience or he is appalled that his words could be subjected to such a withering deconstruction as to render them sophomoric.

Come to think of it, doesn't that describe the state of leftist journalism taught and practiced in the media today? They wonder why they are having difficulty selling newspapers and magazines.

Murdoch will hopefully take another arrow out of the near empty quiver in the leftie arsenal by buying the Dow Jones and WSJ. Seems as how the prospect of selling the declining paper for $60+ trumps the $30 dollars it is currently at for the sheer exhiliration of watching their cash cow sink into oblivion.

They merely highlighted the video because it shows Rudy flashing his electoral go-to move: demonizing brown people, and doing so in the highly agitated manner of some of the 20th century's most reviled dictators.

No, the video was highlighted because Giuliani had allegedly become "unhinged" and said a bad word. Nothing of the context of the rally was presented in the video or mentioned in the post.

How is that a "hint"? It's just an order to stop stating an inconvenient fact. And why would I want to follow that order? Quite the opposite. You hate to hear it because it hurts. The "hint" in there is that I should keep doing it.

Also, Ann's double standards are on full display here, if anyone goes back and reads her commentary on Bill Clinton's interview with Chris Wallace.

There is no double standard.

In the case of Giuliani, the Left is exaggerating an event to argue that that Giuliani is out of control in general (as Althouse points out, very similar to the Howard Dean scream). Althouse is merely pointing out the exaggeration and the Left's deceit.

In contrast, the interview with Clinton was about a specific issue - 9/11, and not about Clinton's temperament generally. In the Clinton interview, the question was... why did Clinton get visibly upset and defensive about 9/11 questions, not whether Clinton is out of control generally. There was no attempt by Althouse to distort the truth here. It is what it is - Clinton did get defensive over these questions.

Arguing that Althouse is using a double standard falls short. Althouse is being quite consistent.

And, Althouse, you're a real hypocrite. You go off on Clinton for cleavage, Edwards for haircuts, and other Dems for other trivialities. etc.

But you think a video of a candidate for the "family values" party screaming "bullshit" in public is not interesting?

---

And you never answered my question on Clinton's cleavage. If it's terrible for her to allow a tiny but of cleavage to show, what does that say for the millions of working American women who are showing cleavage today?

Paco Wové said... Althouse-I don't get the demands for apologies. I've noticed you doing this before, and I'm puzzled as to why.

Paco:

I noticed this pattern after just a couple of weeks of perusing Ann's posts. I too have asked about its significance without obtaining a response from Ann. Ann's demands for apologies occur so often it leads one to suspect (as you and I have) that it has a special significance for this woman.

Let me propose a subthread where readers can theorize as to the meaning that demands for apologies (and maybe even apologies themselves) have for Ann.

Of course, having Ann weigh in and engage in some genuine self-disclosure could make short work of this subordinate thread.

Ajd floats some interesting hypotheses as to the meaning of Ann's demands. He suggests that it reflects Ann's unsated attentional appetite and her feelings of victimization.

I will offer my own observation. I remember one very bright and intense person I worked with who frequently demanded apologies (for example, if I was even a minute late for a meeting). I experienced her as really controlling.

Instead, you a) repeat lame, false right-wing attacks on Democratic politicians overt and over again, and b) you cozy up to the right wing likes of Michelle Malkin, Instpundit, and Volokh.

Point out some examples where Althouse has repeated "false right-wing attacks on Democratic politicans." I am very interested in finding out.

Also, what does it mean to cozy up to Michelle Malkin? Granted Malkin is rather attractive, but I have never heard of Althouse being associated with Malkin in anyway. They don't seem to be interested in the same issues...

And you never answered my question on Clinton's cleavage. If it's terrible for her to allow a tiny but of cleavage to show, what does that say for the millions of working American women who are showing cleavage today?

Let me ask you a question Alpha...

Why would a woman want to show cleavage? What is the specific purpose for doing it?

Once you have answered this question honestly to yourself, you will understand why Althouse was commenting on the subject. Remember, Clinton isn't just a worker in the office hoping for some attention, she is running for President.

Russ Feingold realizes what a disaster the Bush presidency has been. You don't. You think Bush was right to invade and occupy Iraq, and attack the Democrats for trying to end the war.

It could be more simple than that. It could be that Althouse supports the troops and wants them to win. She thinks that would be good for America. In contrast, Feingold and you Doyle, despises the troops and wants them to lose.

I'm a "leftie," and I hate seeing that kind of crap from the self-identified "progressive" blogs. All it does is lower their credibility. It's one thing if you want to make an actual argument, present facts, or comment on news, but posting that (as Thinkprogress just did) Karl Rove was turned down for a date in the 80s, or that Giuliani said a bad word, is just a waste of time.

There are wingnuts on both sides. This name-calling is kind of like Star Trek fans calling Xena fans "nerds."

Dolye: demonizing brown people...But if that's what you're looking for in a presidential candidate -

Hold on a sec. You are the one who claims the "brown people" are too barbaric to be trusted with liberty and human rights:

""There is some justice in one charge that is frequently leveled against the United States, and more generally against the West: Middle Easterners frequently complain that the West judges them by different and lower standards than it does Europeans and Americans, both in what is expected of them and what they may expect, in terms of their economic well-being and their political freedom. They assert that Western spokesmen repeatedly overlook or even defend actions and support rulers that they would not tolerate in their own countries. ...there is nevertheless a widespread [Western] perception that there are significant differences between the advanced Western world and the rest, notably the peoples of Islam, and that these latter are in some ways different, with the tacit assumption that they are inferior. The most flagrant violations of civil rights, political freedom, and even human decency are disregarded or glossed over, and crimes against humanity, which in a European or American country would evoke a storm of outrage, are seen as normal and even acceptable.

...The underlying assumption in all this is that these people are incapable of running a democratic society and have neither concern nor capacity for human decency."

- Family values: Republicans often complain about the "coarsening of the culture." While they clearly don't include racism as one of their coarse concerns (preferring instead to use racism for political gain), obscenities are something they care about, and there's a primary on. Get it?

- TPM did not lie about the context.

- "Why would a woman want to show cleavage? What is the specific purpose for doing it?" I would not be so arrogant as to presume to know the answer to that question. I suspect there are dozens or hundreds of answers. ---I not you did not dispute my point that a) Greg Sargent is reaching a reasonable conclusion that Ann Althouse is a right winger given her long list of writings carrying water for the right, bashing liberals, her cozying up to the right, and her inability to critize conservatives.

b) Ann Althouse is a hypocrite for devoting so much attention to campaign triviality and then attacking the posting of this video. ---I'll try to check back in later to see if Althouse provides a reasoned response to my criticisms.

"Why would a woman want to show cleavage? What is the specific purpose for doing it?" I would not be so arrogant as to presume to know the answer to that question. I suspect there are dozens or hundreds of answers.

You have to be kidding me. You with the ears....have you ever kissed a girl!

Are you so naive as to think women have other reasons than the obvious for showing cleavage? I suppose you could argue that a woman wants to show cleavage to upend some other woman, but in the end the ultimate purpose is the same.

Republicans often complain about the "coarsening of the culture." While they clearly don't include racism as one of their coarse concerns (preferring instead to use racism for political gain), obscenities are something they care about, and there's a primary on. Get it?

This is utter crap. The republican party stands for the idea that all races should be treated equally. It's you Democrats who think that people should be favored based on the color of their skin. It has always been that way. Both before the civil war through the civil rights era and today.

First, interesting comments about the left not acknowledging or knowing how to talk to the middle. Cogent and accurate!

Secondly, people here treat Ann's moderate stance and swing voting as the problem rather than the symptom of the Democratic party's struggles. They would deny her reality rather than accept it and deal with it in a constructive manner.

Bad move! For any organization to succeed, it has to look at the people who stray and address, if possible, the reasons.

Ann could be brought back to the party by a more moderate position on defense, the war, and perhaps spending. She is not leading the defections, but she certainly does represent them.

Maybe, but then under the same logic we should start calling you a Nazi.

Hmmm... Well hey no one's stopping you from calling me a Nazi. If it feels good, do it, is my motto.

But a salient difference between my calling Ann a Republican (for her support of Bush) and you calling me a Nazi (for my presumed support for universal health care) is that Ann voted for Bush and I never voted for Hitler.

Plus, the only group of people on the planet, in history, who are largely pro-Iraq War are American Republicans. Meanwhile lots of people all over the world are, and have been for some time, pro-universal health care. It's not a distinctively Nazi position.

"Are you so naive as to think women have other reasons than the obvious for showing cleavage? "

Air conditioning, for one. Comfort. Freedom. She likes the style. She rejects the notion that her body must be hidden from view (not unlike the anti-burqa feelings). It's the fashion. It's the only thing that matched her outfit that was clean that day.

Some friendly advice: you presume too much. Especially when you're a male commenting on female fashions or views on sexuality.

Some friendly advice: you presume too much. Especially when you're a male commenting on female fashions or views on sexuality.

Thanks for the friendly advice. Does that mean that I would be free to say "nice cleavage" to someone at work. After all, we should presume they are showing it for air conditioning purposes....or to celebrate the freedom we have from the burka.

Alpha Liberal: "And you never answered my question on Clinton's cleavage. If it's terrible for her to allow a tiny but of cleavage to show, what does that say for the millions of working American women who are showing cleavage today?"

Where are these women working? Are they doctors seeing patients, lawyers in a courtroom, professors in front of a classroom? If they are, they are making a serious fashion blunder. I don't think this is happening, in fact. Please clarify your question. I can't imagine going in to work at the law school showing cleavage or speaking at a conference showing cleavage -- even a "tiny bit."

Doyle said: The Dems did fine in 2006 without Ann's help, and will do the same in 2008.

Doyle, are you familiar with the term that past performance is not indicative of future results?

A few others of liberal persuasion on this blog keep making this assertion and all I would do is caution you that the election is 18 months away. A lot can happen in 18 months so you shouldn’t be so eager to start passing out the champagne and booking Streisand.

It is telling that instead of addressing the substance of her post and arguements, the lefties (with a few exceptions) try to marginalize her by questioning her commitment to their ideology by demanding that she agree with them on all points in order to be able to call herself a Democrat, much less a liberal. This is done to impugn her motives and discredit her, rather than address any uncomfortable intellectual inconsistencies. It is also a very old tactic of lefty's that allows them to evade the issue. It is intellectual turd throwing rather than serious discussion.

The dirty little secret is that most people in fact don't disapprove of the war per se. What most people dislike is the way it's being fought, and they abhor even more the idea of cutting and running in Iraq. The Dems know that. The internals of their polling tells them so. That's why they don't have the cojones to stand straight up and defund the war or do whatever else it takes to end it. They don't want to commit political suicide. Instead they take cheap potshots from hiding to try to undermine the effort.

“Greg, you've started off this post on your ass.”“Now get up off your ass and write a real response to me.” “You should have put that in your original post, too, loser.”“Now, do a proper update and apologize to me.”

Unhinged may not describe the Giuliani video, but it certainly describes this post. Next time, break the Prozac in half.

Really, truly, I want to get more intellectual sustenance from left-wing sites. I am politically open-minded, and persuadable on some issues that the left could have good answers. But Greg Sargent is all too typical of what I find there. Defend him all you like folks; the fact is, he uses invective, not argument. Based on his feeble attempts to flog this relatively innocuous video, he shows himself to be a propagandist. A very mediocre propagandist, by the way. I'm sure many of his fellow leftists clicked the video and had the same reaction most of us did: "Huh? What's the big deal?" But they're not going to embarrass him my saying anything.

Plus, there is this emerging fantasy on the left that candidates like Guiliani can be dispensed with by using his personal life and sometimes less-than-decorous language as a wedge to drive social conservatives away from him. Just wait & see. If Rudy gets the '08 nomination, the Democrats won't hardly debate him at all. It will be all oppo research, all the time, and all of it focused on the religious right, a group Democratic pros think they understand and can manipulate.

"Democrats are trying to find any technical excuse to keep immunity out of the language of the bill to protect citizens, who in good faith, report suspicious activity to police"

Its hardly off-topic, since you're castigating Ann for not toeing the Democrat Party line. Do you oppose it, but aren't allowed to speak against it by the Party? Afraid Micheal Moore will come for you in the middle of the night? LOL.

Ann, thanks for the reply on the cleavage question. I don't know where every woman works. I've encountered some in corporate settings so dressed. Perhaps they disagree with you on the horrendousness of cleavage and you've over-analyzed Hillary on this point. (We know no man need deal with such withering and subjective fashion scolding).

So, Ann, when will you clarify what you want an apology for? In this thread or a later one?

I think I raised some good points that, if it's fair for you to rant on Hillary's cleavage or Edwards' haircuts, then posting a video of a Presidential candidate using profanity at a rally openly attended by racists is worth airing.

You find something wrong in this video being posted. "Unfair," you seem to say, while peddling unfair attacks yourself.

---fen, I have no idea what bill you're talking about. The police aspect of this issue is whether there should be civilian oversight of police abuse. Giuliani opposed this when Dinkins was Mayor, then passed a similar measure when he was mayor.

They merely highlighted the video because it shows Rudy flashing his electoral go-to move: demonizing brown people, and doing so in the highly agitated manner of some of the 20th century's most reviled dictators.

Ann has selectively quoted Greg Sargent's piece choosing to focus on fluff and piffle, as per her specialty. She left out why he thinks the video is important.

Allow me: Rudy's relentless and apparently vengeful crusade against Dinkins during those years are really key to understanding the man. He was never able to forgive Dinkins for having been chosen by the voters the first time around -- so unable to do so, in fact, that as Mayor he continued to use his bully pulpit to try and humiliate his former rival many years later. In 1998, five years after he'd beaten Dinkins, Rudy had this to say about him: "If I had his record I'd be kind of embarrassed to even show my face."

You can't understand the "bulls#$t" moment without seeing it in this larger context. It was anything but some random outburst. It isn't just some little "gotcha." It's Rudy in the raw. It's the Whole Rudy -- his rage, his overwhelming drive, his successful exploitation of the city's racial tensions to take power, his nasty and vicious streak.

It's probably worth remembering the real Rudy, particularly since he's now asking us to hand him control of the most powerful military in human history.

Actually, one of the nice thing about this site is that on occasion, you actually do get more then ad hominem attacks on the liberal side of a debate. It is not all drive by argumentation by character assignation. There really aren't that many places where right and left actually come together and try to debate.

For those who are nuance-impaired (despite their claims to the contrary), I can help you out. Using the word "bullshit" in front of an audience of policeman (or, for that matter, firefighters, miners, truckers, soldiers and many other occupations) is hardly scandalous or even particularly surprising from anyone, even a "family values" candidate. What would be surprising and scandalous is if you had a tape of Rudy Giuliani saying "bullshit" at an Easter egg hunt, an elementary school assembly, or a tea with the queen of England. Pull something like that out of your archives, and then we'll talk.

I do find it interesting that Ann is thrown in with some of the more outspoken female speakers on the right. I don't think that Malkin or Coulter, to name a few, would go through the bother of pointing out that they had voted for the Democrat in 3 of the last 4 presidential elections (likely because they didn't for even one of them). Malkin is esp. egregious, being an Asian who has abandoned the liberal plantation.

OK, a couple interesting observations on Althouse's demand for an apology:

1) No-one here that I can find is backing her up. Instead, the wingers are happy she is (again) bashing a liberal.

2) Ann seems to demand that we interpret her comment-free post of the text from an old NYT story as signifying... something. What, exactly, Ann can't bring herself to say as she just does not do criticism of righties. so, she says Sargent should have posted more on the original vid, even though she doesn't herself. mm hmm..---Reading Sargent's post in full it's pretty clear that this is a guy who wants to get the word out about a leading Presidential candidate. Althouse wants to misdirect the conversation -- to her!

Keep reminding everybody what a liberal fantasy of what a city should be NYC was before Rudy and what it is like now.

I mean it, keep it up, really.

The trumped up, decontextualized and recontextualized-after-the-fact charges of racism only carry weight with those who would never vote R anyway. I am sure that Repuplicans are betting heavily on votes from NYC anyway, black or white. So this is devestating, really. D E V A S T A T I N G. As a Republican, I am begging you to stop running this video.

The reason I am not "backing up Althouse" is because logic does not work with lefty propagandist who do not care about objective reality. I think that giving the twit this much attention, to the point of an Instalanche, is a debating mistake. She should know better.

He was campaigning against an incumbent mayor, who happened to be black. Who also happened to be about the most lead-footed, special-interest-paralyzed, clueless politician I've ever seen up close. New York was riven with problems when that campaign happened. Within about two years after Rudy took office, hard-core liberal residents were telling me that while they had voted against him out of loyalty to their party in '93, they had to admit (almost guiltily) that they enjoyed having the streets back, the increased sense of safety especially at night and the sense that New Yorkers weren't helpless against societal forces anymore.

The notion of Guiliani as a race-baiter was a calculated slander to keep Dinkins' past supporters from defecting, and later to maintain the possibility, however slight, of defeating him in 1997.

I love Greg Sargent's attempts to turn this moment into a historically significant moment in race relations--but it was nothing of the kind. Guiliani didn't use race as a wedge in 1993; he used Dinkins' manifest lack of competence and leadership skill. It was an entirely respectable campaign.

A comment from sensitive, warm, empathetic liberal committed to all women's issues: "if the bitch on wheels Michele Malkin ...." You and the homophobic LOS just have to be KKK trolls doing liberal sockpuppetry. Nothing else makes sense.

re cleavage and when and where to display it--seems to me like this is a question that can only be answered by some inherent good judgment. If someone needs to seek guidance, she is probably lacking in the judgment area.

And with respect to the Rudy tape--looks like the dems are running scared about Rudy: (1) the IAFF hit job a few weeks back, and now this. Can someone propose a scenario that explains why the negative campaigning on Rudy? The more this happens, the more Rudy appeals to me.

How dishonest can you get? First he accuses Rudy of "screaming" and getting "unhinged". If that's screaming and that's unhinged then every candidate that I've ever seen addressing an outdoor rally is screaming and unhinged. (As far as the BS line...I loved it.)

THEN he pulls out some crap about racist cops? Um, dude, if this were so pertinent to the debate, why not bring it out in the first post?? If it's so easy to find in a Google search and so pertinent to the issue...why didn't you include it? Gimme a break.

I often agree with you. I'm no fan of Giuliani. I've never voted Republican and won't be starting anytime soon. I get as frustrated as you do with some of the comments here.

But Ann's right on this. The original TPM post on the 'BS video' was presented as Giuliani being "unhinged", and that just wasn't the case. It was infantile "OMG" blogger hysteria. Althouse pointed out the lame tactics, and Sargent scraped together an ad hoc argument that was completely absent from the first post. And the whole time, he kept up his insulting "Duh, you retards" tone. But the attempted point of that first post had zero to do with NYC race relations.

Get a life Roost, you are just another wing nut chickenhawk Bush/Althouse/Cheny/Hitler loving hack. Nobody takes you seriously. Maybe you should get a day job rather than spending time reading this blog. You obviously don't read anything out side of Front Page Mag...blah blah blah yikes...

A thing about these left vs right fights: If you read the left side, you don't have the slightest idea what the right side actually said. If you read the right side, you get the whole story.

If he can't take criticism, the only attention you should pay to him is to call him unserious and inconsequential.

He doesn't battle you, but an extreme caricature of who you are. In his mind all liberals are smart and hip, and all conservatives look like the city council on "Pleasantville". Any battle between you two would bear no resemblance to the opera he sees in his own mind.

Things like whether or not a speaker is "shouting," "screaming," or "shrieking" are in the eyes and ears of the beholder, IMNSHO.

Likewise for whether one is unhinged. I think when you can see a speaker's molars, it's fair game to say "unhinged."

And the whole debate over the semantics is a sideshow.

That Althouse, who routinely posts clips and quotes without elaboration, would rip on someone doing nearly the same doesn't speak especially well of her. --------To quote the Giuliani campaign: “Giuliani’s shrieking performance at the cop rally may be his greatest political liability this year. Giuliani has yet to admonish those who attacked the mayor with racist code words on signs and banners. Why not?”

Alpha--you simply cannot read. Here is the quote from the NYT:This study, obtained by Wayne Barrett, author of “Rudy!” — an investigative biography — offers an unsparing critique: “Giuliani’s shrieking performance at the cop rally may be his greatest political liability this year. Giuliani has yet to admonish those who attacked the mayor with racist code words on signs and banners. Why not?”

Please note the author of that statement is one Wayne Barrett who is the author of an "investigative report" and not associated with the campaign.

Re my previous on the NYT article, and to be as clear as possible: The NYT, because of very unclear writing, does not distinguish what the "study" said versus what Mr. Barrett said. If you can source that comment to the "campaign studey," then I will apologize to you forthwith.

"Last month, the imams filed a lawsuit against US Airways, the airport and unnamed passengers who complained to airline personnel about the imams' behavior. The suit charges that these John Doe passengers "may have made false reports against plaintiffs solely with the intent to discriminate against them on the basis of their race, religion, ethnicity and national origin."

Holy Jeebus! With the American political mainstream having shifted well to the left of you and your ilk (check the polls, Sweetie), you're reduced to splitting semantical hairs over whether Giuliani "screamed" or "shouted" a certain barnyard epithet and whether your conservative (theocratic, in this case) pals will be offended by the naughty word. Pathetic!

Ann, I did link to Sargent's original statement. I linked to the TPMCafe version rather than the frontpage TPM version. The text of the two posts is identical -- they both have the "value voters" bit.

It's a waste of time to argue over whether Sargent "clarified" his post (as I said) or "moved the goalposts" (as you said). I agree that if Giuliani merely used the word "bullshit" in a loud voice then there'd be no issue. The issue was the out-of-control rally and Giuliani whipping up the crowd.

I used to post comments here, have been away for awhile, and just starting lurking around again recently. If you compare it to a couple years ago, it's amazing how infested with trolls this place has become.

I'm all for criticism and debate, but it's clear there are a few posters here whose primary goal is just to annoy you and annoy anybody in the comments section who disagrees with them.

Not only does this not accomplish anything, but it's counter-productive--It gets in the way of any serious arguments (trolls never go away by just ignoring them) and I wouldn't be surprised if it's motivated in part to tweek you until you lose your cool and say something that they're able to bash you with.

Are you really, really a law professor? I often feel that you can't possibly be, what with your rambling, drunken YouTube postings and your penchant for calling everyone with whom you disagree a "loser."

Roger, no apologies necessary either way, but thanks for your honest correction.

Re-reading it, I see how one might interpret it as the autobiographer's words, but upon re-reading a couple time it seems pretty clear they are quoting the study:

This study, obtained by Wayne Barrett, author of “Rudy!” — an investigative biography — offers an unsparing critique: “Giuliani’s shrieking performance at the cop rally may be his greatest political liability this year. Giuliani has yet to admonish those who attacked the mayor with racist code words on signs and banners. Why not?”

Oh, Greg, you moonbat, your lame post is beyond parody because it is already its own parody. (Hint: I'm just pretending to write like a lefty blogger for fun. I don't really write like that. But I note how damned easy it is.)

"Moonbat" is right-wing slang for leftists, so no you're not writing like a lefty blogger for fun. Keep the entertainment coming.

Identifying the histrionics that characterize some of the blogs comprising the political blogosphere can be amusing. You tend to highlight some of the over-reactivity on the left. Cool, although it often has the quality of shooting fish in a barrel.

Personally, I find the style and personal content of your political posts and reactions to left-leaners more fascinating than your recapitulation of their dramatics.

Apparently, others have caught on to your recurrent insistence of apologies (it is particularly salient in this instance given that you have italicized and concluded your post with your standard demand) from those who have taken some exception to your posts. Since it occurs so regularly, I suspect (and others do as well) that the need for some form of apology has special meaning for you. I have asked you on more than one occasion to share with us the significance of this requirement to no avail.

On the other hand, not responding, for me, renders it more interesting and underscores its significance.

Things like whether or not a speaker is "shouting," "screaming," or "shrieking" are in the eyes and ears of the beholder, IMNSHO.

Likewise for whether one is unhinged. I think when you can see a speaker's molars, it's fair game to say "unhinged."

You won't like this comparison, but... one of the tactics the Soviet Union used to marginalize and isolate dissenters was to brand them as mentally ill.

"Unhinged" is used by English speakers to mean "deranged," or "unbalanced." It's not merely an intensifier for angry or emphatic. It's a metaphor derived from the image of a door falling off its hinges.

Whether Rudy Guiliani is "deranged" or "unbalanced" is not in the "eye of the beholder." It is lame to argue one's point on the sole basis that everyone is entitled to their own opinion -- especially with respect to whether a person has control of their mental faculties.

Just put down the partisan goggles for a half-second and consider what it might mean if Rudy Guiliani were, in fact, a human being, just like you. If someone were to call you insane, and you denied it, you wouldn't accept it if they came back with, "It's in the eye of the beholder." Presumably, you are not "unhinged," and would consider it a lie, not an opinion, if someone said you were.

Alpha: "To quote the Giuliani campaign: “Giuliani’s shrieking performance at the cop rally may be his greatest political liability this year. Giuliani has yet to admonish those who attacked the mayor with racist code words on signs and banners. Why not?”"

Dave Weigel (apparently) writes: "Ann, I did link to Sargent's original statement. I linked to the TPMCafe version rather than the frontpage TPM version. The text of the two posts is identical -- they both have the "value voters" bit. It's a waste of time to argue over whether Sargent "clarified" his post (as I said) or "moved the goalposts" (as you said). I agree that if Giuliani merely used the word "bullshit" in a loud voice then there'd be no issue. The issue was the out-of-control rally and Giuliani whipping up the crowd."

It sure as hell isn't a "waste of time" from my standpoint! Look what you wrote about me! It was insulting and wrong and harmful to me. So you need a major correction and apology! You've treated me as if I didn't understand the context, when I was responding to a minimal post that was entirely what you now agree would be bullshit. So correct it already! This is just plain bad faith now.

...Althouse, who routinely posts clips and quotes without elaboration, would rip on someone doing nearly the same...-Alpha

But Alpha, that wasn't what she was ripping on at all! She criticizes the caption specifically! And rightly so. Check it out again:

I thought it might tell us something about the reliability and temperament of this man who is asking us to make him our next Commander in Chief -- especially now that he's trying to win the support of GOP "values voters."

Nothing about race-relations, nothing about the context of the event. It was supposed to show that Giuliani lacks "reliability" and "temperament".

Which is a disingenuous, sleazy argument to make. Hollering "bullshit" during a fiery speech doesn't indicate any of that, and if a democrat did it, it'd probably make me like him more. You too, I bet. Ann pointed this out, and got called a right-wing nut setting herself up for mockery.

a) It's pretty clear by the context ("this year") it was from back then. b) They were closer to the event and described it as "shrieking," which is beyond even the "screaming" over which you picked semantical nits. c) They clearly pointed out the race issues involved.

The date is not relevant, except to further buttress the points made by Greg Sargent. -----And, now, someone else "owes" you an apology? Be sure to add this guy to your list.

Wait 'til you see the TPM You Tube showing Rudy looking, um, unhinged at some cleavage!

Preferably Rudy looking at some Black cleavage to get “wingnuts” more upset. (The facile use of the term “wingnuts” as a short-hand for those of us on the Right, as Palladian points out, signifying that one is in denial that there are actually Left “wingnuts”.)

BTW, Will Congress pass a law exempting from lawsuits those males who leer at cleavage? As long as they don't scream, of course.

Russ Feingold realizes what a disaster the Bush presidency has been. You don't. You think Bush was right to invade and occupy Iraq, and attack the Democrats for trying to end the war.

It could be more simple than that. It could be that Althouse supports the troops and wants them to win. She thinks that would be good for America. In contrast, Feingold and you Doyle, despises the troops and wants them to lose.

Oh come on, let's just stop that foolishness.

The best thing anyone who actually supports the troops could do is try to get them home asap. It's a disaster, whether you blame Bush or not. Of course I want us to "win", I just don't think it's possible. To accuse Feingold, Doyle, or anyone else of despising the troops because they don't support the war is the silliest, easiest cop-out I've ever heard.

We've been trying to get her to do that for a long time, not just for the banning but for the better content management features of something like WordPress.

The problem is that when websites full of stupid college students and other assorted losers link to you, you're going to get what I like to call "seepage".

The best thing to do about seepage is to seal all the cracks and have a mop and bucket handy when there's a rain shower. Leaving all the insulting, degrading comments up just deteriorates the tone of the comments and drives away all of the interesting, smart people. But, as they say, it's her website.

Doyle said The potential inconvenience of being sued if you're wrong seems like a pretty minor impediment

Its an inconvenience for a corporation but not for a private individual who has to pony up a few thousand dollars to hire an attorney just so a judge can 'toss out a frivolous suit'. I mean if we can't afford our own health insurance, how on earth do we defend ourselvs from lawsuits?

But that doesn't answer Pogo's question Doyle. Do you think there should be immunity for people for informing authorities of suspected terrorists?

I had no INTEREST in commenting on the legislation until I was badgered into paying attention to this idiotic story.

Who cares if Peter King and IBD want some law passed to encourage more people to cry "Terrorist"? It's not that surprising, and I bet if I looked into it I could probably find a justification for its defeat that didn't include a desire to protect terrorists.

Clearly, nobody takes Althouse seriously. You can tell by the number of comments, and the diversity and number of the commenters. When this post hits 200 or 300 comments, we'll know Althouse truly is not taken seriously by the far-left.

Why would they post here so venomously, after all? I mean, if they took her seriously?

Re: "I bet if I looked into it I could probably find a justification for its defeat that didn't include a desire to protect terrorists."

I'm sure you could, too. My Senator, Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), former Hennepin County Attorney, voted against its passage, and it failed. She hasn't yet given a public reason, but I am certain she found some justification for it.

But the unintended side effect is to make people know that islamic terrorists can use our legal system against us, and keep us from reporting something "because I'm just not sure".

And the threat of lawsuits against passengers is quite an effective tool.

Doyle -- Falsely accusing someone of being a terrorist is not remotely the same as walking up to a police officer or a flight attendant and saying, "I saw that guy doing something suspicious and I think maybe he has a bomb or something."

The far left (and probably the far right, I don't know) has a serious problem with equivocation. We see it in the claim that "screaming" and "shouting" are the same. We see it in the claim that "falsely accusing someone of being a terrorist" is the same as "see something, say something."

You're right, I apologize for that. It's not a waste of time to get Sargent to retract the "wingnut" stuff since that obviously offended you. Once you sort that out, Sargent's attitude is less important than whether Rudy misbehaved by whipping up the crowd in 1992.

Look what you wrote about me! It was insulting and wrong and harmful to me. So you need a major correction and apology!

I assume we're talking about this: "Skeptical (mostly conservative) bloggers thought Sargent meant that the word 'bullshit' would alienate conservative voters... Althouse, in an awesome moment of irony, simply denied that Giuliani was 'unhinged' or 'screaming.'" The irony is that a blogger who's often accused of being unhinged in online videos is diagnosing whether someone in an online video is being unhinged.

You've treated me as if I didn't understand the context, when I was responding to a minimal post that was entirely what you now agree would be bullshit.

I'm waiting to hear back from Sargent about this. Since he's covered Rudy for years, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and figured he left out the larger context of the rally because he over-estimated how famous it was.

So correct it already! This is just plain bad faith now.

I updated the post a while ago to say: "Althouse is right about the first Sargent post: It implies that Giuliani's tone of voice and curse word are the scandal." And then I joke that Sargent's critics should have Googled for info about the rally to figure out why it was such a big deal.

David -- I really tend to agree with Althouse that the guy who wrote this was motivated because he thought conservatives would be offended by the word "bullshit" itself.

There is this What's the Matter with Kansas" sentiment among coastal lefties that religious conservatives in middle America and the South are unwashed and everything, but also really super-moral. I think it goes along with ideas about purity and such, but that's another discussion.

In general, I do like the idea of legal recourse for people who are falsely accused of being terrorists, yes.

The Democratic Party agrees with you because the notion of any limits on lawsuits whatsoever upsets one of the party's three biggest sources of contributions.

It's not a "ridiculous issue." What voters find ridiculous is that fear of being accused of "profiling" -- a perfectly legimate police technique -- has deterred both public safety officers and civilians alike from acting on their own common sense.

If so many people thought the flying Imams were acting suspiciously before a flight took off, why should we let attorneys come in long after the fact to harass and bankrupt them?

Doyle, if you were involved in a situation like the flying Imams, I really can't imagine your first move would be to remind yourself of the wonders of diversity and the danger of stereotypes. You'd act prudently to save your life, if that's what you thought was at stake. You shouldn't have to pay such a high price for acting on your instincts.

David Weigel: "I assume we're talking about this: "Skeptical (mostly conservative) bloggers thought Sargent meant that the word 'bullshit' would alienate conservative voters... Althouse, in an awesome moment of irony, simply denied that Giuliani was 'unhinged' or 'screaming.'" The irony is that a blogger who's often accused of being unhinged in online videos is diagnosing whether someone in an online video is being unhinged."

Yes, you're obviously implying that I was wrong about what Sargent meant when -- as you admit -- I was right. And now you're just gratuitously calling me crazy! You're really a slimeball, then, aren't you? I hadn't quite realized it until you came out so openly.

"I'm waiting to hear back from Sargent about this. Since he's covered Rudy for years, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and figured he left out the larger context of the rally because he over-estimated how famous it was."

Bullshit! It's there in the text. Don't insult me openly, then turn around and say you're giving HIM the benefit of the doubt. You owe me the benefit of an apology. On the Reason website.

"I updated the post a while ago to say: "Althouse is right about the first Sargent post: It implies that Giuliani's tone of voice and curse word are the scandal." And then I joke that Sargent's critics should have Googled for info about the rally to figure out why it was such a big deal."

Insufficient. I didn't write a damned thing about the rally per se and that was utterly irrelevant to my reaction to his post. I don't have one word in my post suggesting that I had some question that I needed to research.

There is this What's the Matter with Kansas" sentiment among coastal lefties that religious conservatives in middle America and the South are unwashed and everything, but also really super-moral. I think it goes along with ideas about purity and such, but that's another discussion.

Very good point Seven. I have a sibling who is an accomplished and very smart attorney at a states attorney generals' office and also a die hard liberal and an atheist.

She believes that Bush prays every morning and behaves based on why messages Bush believes God told him during his prayers. I kid you not. She is generally afraid of Evangelical Christians. She believes that these Christians run around believing that God is talking to them and they will then behave based on these voices regardless of rationality.

She lives in a Madison type community and reads only the NY Times and listens to NPR. She does not actually know any Evangelicals, just what she hears about them from the Times (which tends only to report the whacky stories that confirm her beliefs).

Alpha: "Althouse, moments ago: Insufficient. I didn't write a damned thing about the rally per se and that was utterly irrelevant to my reaction to his post. Well, you took credit for posting the text from the old NYT story on the rally and claimed that your act of posting the quote was some type of commentary. 'Greg, I didn't merely link to the NYT article. I put up the entire relevant passage.' Then you turn around and claim not to have written on it. So, it was relevant to you at some point, and then not relevant. Hmmm...."

It actually makes perfect sense. I responded to Greg's post on Saturday. Then, on Sunday, I was reading the NYT and writing a long post on the article about Giuliani, saw the material about the police rally, and put it with the stuff from the previous day that it related to. That is, I was interested in Greg's clip in the context that he presented it on Saturday, and on Sunday, I was interested in an article in the NYT about Giuliani and race. I care about the racial issues from Giuliani's time as mayor, enough to read and write about it when I encounted the Sunday NYT article, but it just wasn't in Greg's post. Greg tried to act as if it were there originally, but it wasn't!

This entire episode is absolutely infuriating. The moonbats are completely out of control and Althouse deserves an apology now.

I can't barely see straight I am so angry right now.

And all of these spiteful, hateful, liberal trolls clogging up the comments section here is heartbreaking.

The real truth of the matter is the liberal moonbats dislike Althouse because she is a democrat that doesn't tow the line and as a result they have to demonize her.

The moonbats are destructive, angry self centered losers that can't win an arguement by the facts and so they call Althouse names.

Completely uncalled for. Keep on fighting girl. We absolutely love you in the heartland.

The east coast elites are a bunch of sickening perverts anyways. I agree with one of the previous posters-it would be nice if England attacked and took back New England/northeast as well as California-based how they voted. Those parts of the country are completely irrelevant anyway.

"The east coast elites are a bunch of sickening perverts anyways. I agree with one of the previous posters-it would be nice if England attacked and took back New England/northeast as well as California-based how they voted. Those parts of the country are completely irrelevant anyway.

OK, so we've learned Weigel uses a sockpuppet (Dean Mc) or possibly has a magic boyfriend a la Glenwald.

"Sargent and I were both aware that Giuliani yelled "bullshit" during a police rally that was charged with racism and ended with a riot"when did you learn this Dave? weren't you about 11 years old at the time?

While away from the web today, I began thinking about the difference between the Dean scream and the Rudy rouser.

So why did the crazy label hang so tightly 'round Dean's neck? It was primary season, and Dean was an upstart. Members of his own party and pundits sympathetic to his Dem rivals had already tried tagging him with the crazy label. The video reinforced that, and the conservative media outlets ran with it. Did that video change any primary voters' minds? I doubt it, but it helped squelch the possible rise of the outsider to frontrunner status.

Right now, Rudy is not under attack from his fellow GOP rivals for being crazy or "too angry." A video like this, trumpeted by the left, just isn't going to work like the Dean scream video.

Now a video showing Romney flip-flopping, or revelations about massive spending on haircuts and makeup -- either might hurt Romney, no matter who dug it up and showed it over and over.

For what it's worth, I thought the Dean scream thing was blown out of proportion.

Q Who said what & if others are saying similar things, what difference does it make if he/she said it?A. Depends on what was said & why the speaker might be treated differently from other speakers of similar stuff. Rudy has to have some appeal to the Religious Right or whatever the Liberal slur du jour is for these people & this You Tube was designed to hurt him with such people. Nor was it put in context. Prof A was correct in pointing this out. And it was 15 years ago, for goodness sake. When Joe McCarthy dragged up in the ‘50s the peccadilloes of some in the ‘30s it was called McCarthyism!

Q. Should it have been withheld (cover-up!)?A. No, but the person who discloses it selectively should at least admit to partisanship or character assassination. And those who benefit from it should not claim that we have a celebration of the First Amendment thereby. Or the truth, the whole truth, & nothing but the truth.

Q. Do later events put a clear smear in context?

A. No, though they can be, & here are, useful for obfuscation. Explanations & clarifications are OK, of course, but changing the subject is not.

Q. Isn’t all this thread simply a “he said/she said?

A. Far from it. Whether Prof A is over the top on defending herself & asking for a printed apology & is harping too harping on the personal is another matter, but she is clearly correct that this was, in my words, a partisan smear.

(B) On Immunity For “See Something, Say Something”

Q. What difference does it make if one gets sued for saying something about a gathering of people even if such statement is based on a reasonable observation of conduct by such people who fit the profile of people who are now blowing themselves & us up & show no intent of stopping such conduct? Defend such suit & move on.

A. in the real world, even if one is ultimately successful in defending oneself, it costs time & money to defend such suit. Experience teaches that since most people are reluctant to come forward if their time is concerned, a fortiori, fewer people will come forward if their pocketbook is also concerned and even fewer if their pocketbook is materially concerned.

Q. Isn’t this like any other libel/slander suit where A accuses B of something & we go thru the legal process as guaranteed by our laws?

A. On an ACLU textbook level, perhaps. A calling B a communist can be sorted out later & calmly, or relatively calmly through the legal process. Being on a plane which is blown up by what you were fairly sure looked like a suicide group but about which you were inhibited from saying anything is not so calm & is forever! To paraphrase Justice Jackson, “a libel/slander suit is not a suicide pact.”

Ann:It sure as hell isn't a "waste of time" from my standpoint! Look what you wrote about me! It was insulting and wrong and harmful to me. So you need a major correction and apology!

What was so harmful and insulting?

David, Alpha, and the rest of the Althouse gang (both left and right). Is it not obvious that there is something deeply personal, not at all analytical, or reasoned, or objective, about Ann's regular insistence on an apology? Especially in light of all the name calling and insults she hurls about? Here's this woman who claims that if you are going to enter the blogosphere you better have a thick skin, yet she appears congenitally thin skinned.

This apology stuff serves some sort of defensive or offensive function for this woman....but it's not really about being apologetic. In fact, it would not surprise me if, along with a pathological inability to take what she dishes out, I suspect that Ann may be incapable of genuinely apologetic behavior herself.

Well, yes, an objective, reasoned analysis would have told Ann that getting anyone at Reason or TPM to admit to wrongdoing or bad behavior is pretty much hopeless.

I know you meant it as an insult to TPM or Reason, but even taking you at face value, does it not strike you as bizarre that this woman, who hands out ugly (and not infrequently gender based) insluts like Johnny B Goode plays guitar would parade around the blogosphere insisting on apologies?

I would bet, however, that you are more likely to get an apology from TPM or Reason, then you are to get Ann to come clean on whatever drives her hostile and insulting words and actions. It will never happen at her blog.

does it not strike you as bizarre that this woman, who hands out ugly (and not infrequently gender based) insluts like Johnny B Goode plays guitar would parade around the blogosphere insisting on apologies?

As a description of this blog, I don't think that merits much more than a sympathetic smile and a pat on the head.

You liberals all need to go away and play on a more sympathetic defeatist blog.

This blog supports our president and republicans and if you don't like it get over it and go away.

The mean spirited postings from some of these enlightened liberals towards Althouse is pretty disgusting.

We got it, you don't like her. But why waste your time coming here and demeaning her in the most cruel ways?

You are obviously pissed another democrat doesn't kiss Hilary's butt and has been supportive of the president. OK, got it, now move on and go to another more friendly site where you can post your hatred.

As a description of this blog, I don't think that merits much more than a sympathetic smile and a pat on the head.

Obviously I was in a hurry and did not proofread my post. Nonetheless, you have not addressed the issues raised by my posts...nor has Ann.

1. Why does Ann continually demand apologies? Especially when she is so quick to engage in name calling and hostile insults (referring to Sargent as a 'loser' who does not have 'balls'? or David Wiegel as a 'slimeball').

I admit, Ann's insistence on apology from these two bloggers seems a little pointless in this instance -- sort of like demanding an apology from a five year old who calls you a poopybutt -- but it's her way of calling attention to (not insults but) untruthful statements that ought to be corrected. Maybe if she demanded corrections instead of apologies, the nature of the offense would be clearer to those are confused.

What's particularly smarmy is Sargent's CYA backfilling, and then pretending that all the new information was implicitly part of his original post. Wwwwweak!

Anyway, what's with the sudden concern about apologies? Apologizing has been seen for at least 15 years as the ultimate symbolic gesture to be demanded of Americans for our "shameful" history. Are apologies only available to special people?

Shouting, screaming, whatever. He was engaging in cheap campaign demagoguery to rile up the kind of of racist half-wits who were his base, especially during his first administration.

I've lived in New York since the first Koch Administration, and I know that, as George says, Dinkins was a terrible mayor. But trust me, so was Giuliani. He rode the Clinton-era economic boom (and its resulting nationwide drop in crime) with considerable success. But when it came to actually governing, he was a mean-spirited, divisive control freak. Not to mention putting his emergency management HQ in the World Trade Center -- after the first attack. That alone would seem to disqualify him for any job that involves actually preparing for a disaster.

Father: Rudy was a great mayor. 9/11 aside, and his presidential aspirations aside, the City is cleaner, safer, prettier, better, better-run place than it was before. No reasonable person could say otherwise.

It's like Eisenhower a bad general because you don't want him to be president. It's just not credible.

For all of the worthless word spam TPM puts out about the "context" of the situation, they left out the fact that Rudy was responding to Dinkins' prior use of the word "bullshit" and that Rudy had no idea the bridge was being blocked.

Now they're trying to blame Rudy for signs that cops might have carried at demonstrations where Rudy might have been present, even though they've presented no evidence whatsoever.

First, I agree, Rudy calling his opponent's policy "bullshit" to a crowd of rowdy police officers is not racially or otherwise inappropriate in my book, the tortured explanations to the contrary notwithstandng.

However, your post is predictably juvenile and narcissistic.

Why is it always about apologies to you? Is your ego so large and your skin so thin? Unseemly and constant demands for apologies for so-called attacks while simulatenously calling your alleged attackers "losers" is pretty rich.

Lastly, one of your favored pets, Sloan, basically called your hero Feingold a damned traitorous bastard. (and, by extension, the majority of Americans who happen to agree with Mr. Feingold)

Does keeping truck with the likes of him bother you at all? Even a little?

At the risk of using the big words in a long sentence that you hate so much, the meme propounded self-interestedly by the bush administration that questioning their war of choice is somehow (and perversely) anti-troops or unpatriotic is among its foulest and most undemocratic contributions to our discourse.

Oh man, I used several big words, and the sentence was a little longwinded, I'm probably a Greenwald sockpuppet. How unserious.

Lastly, at my "white shoe" law firm, cleavage is commonly seen in the summer, exhibited by lawyers, secretaries, paralegals and other staff.

Look, boobies!

Sloanasaurus said...

It could be more simple than that. It could be that Althouse supports the troops and wants them to win. She thinks that would be good for America. In contrast, Feingold and you Doyle, despises the troops and wants them to lose.

Zen: Ann's no "moderate" though. Her misogyny and the bile she lashes on liberals mark her out as a solid winger. Whoever she once voted for.

Zen's post is instructive of just how far out into the wilderness the Left has wandered. Forget that Ann is a pro-choice feminist, forget that she supports homosexual marriage, forget all her liberal positions... for moonbats like Zen, she's not a moderate because she DARES to criticize the Left.

I’ve anticipated mindless comments such as yours in a long posting on the earlier thread on Rudy.

I’ll repeat those points by responding to your 7:59 PM

You say that Rudy

“was engaging in cheap campaign demagoguery to rile up the kind of of racist half-wits who were his base, especially during his first administration.”

I think that to the Liberal mind the real Rudy problem is that he refused to legitimize the outrageous demagoguery of the racist half-wits the NYT cites as leaders, as a result of which we had that big reduction in crime & a revitalized Harlem.

Look, this is why the video registers in the minds of Liberals who hate Rudy It reminds them that he was courageous & tough when it came to what they felt needed a continuation of the failed root causes policy, a/k/a, blaming poverty for crime. For Liberals with exhausted ideas it’s always the late ‘60s & early ‘70s when John Lindsay was Mayor & when he was fresh & everyone else was tired & when we all got along. Race is its only energizing issue, as you prove in that sentence. A few ceremonial gestures of multiculturalism might have seemed good in the short run for a Black population with only a racist dysfunctional leadership anointed by the NYT, but that’s not Rudy. He’s all results. It’s called real leadership. It's called the Harlem Renaissance

So, you’d have it that Clinton gets all the credit for the boom which began when a Republican congress got elected & Rudy gets no credit for NYC’s boom? Right. As someone has noted, ever since LaGuardia, before Rudy, every Mayor left office diminished in stature along with the City. Pessimism was the prevailing meme even among Liberals. Big Cities were “ungovernable” & NYC was absolutely ungovernable. Rudy did far more than appear & mouth Liberal pieties about poverty & lack of Federal government funds for one more poverty-ending project, suck lack caused by mostly Republican Presidents. Rudy was, alas, uneven in reducing City spending but he cut the deficit & the payroll & fought (at least in the early years) with the brain-dead government unions, accomplishments not to be minimized in NYC.

And his most important success was in taking steps to reduce crime, including Black-on-Black crime & restoring public order. Do you really believe that crime stats would’ve had, under Rudy’s predecessor or another of the ‘90s candidates, the similar decline noted by Prof A in her previous thread?

And none of this was just dumb luck. (BTW, do you believe that it was also dumb luck when Clinton presided over the ‘90s economic boom?) NYC’s obviously successful response to 9/11 (which you downplay & attribute to others contrary to your giving Clinton credit for what happened when he was President) reflected Rudy’s years of planning for terrorism rather than sitting around reflecting on root causes, which reflections somehow always amount to “blame it on poverty”. Yes, as the anti-Rudy NYC firefighter commercial claims, the nerve center was put in 7 WTC which was toppled by the crash of the towers in the 9/11 strike (who knew?). And all the Best & the Brightest were against such nerve center in the first place. (NYT: “NYC’s funniest bunker since Archie”.) But, more important, the general planning worked in spite of this building collapse because there were policies in place which were not there in previous Administrations. (Dinkins did nothing about radios after the first WTC attack in 1993, a fact ignored in the ad.) Nor, IMHO, would such policies have been in the administrations of any of the diminished-in-waiting.

In short, the late ‘90s were the best of times whereas before that it was the worst of times for the Big Apple. And Rudy changed the defeatist culture of NYC which legacy has at least not diminished so far. And Rudy was a strong guy from a working-class background who understands the value of treating immigrants & Blacks with dignity, not as if they were your racist half-wits, which concept does not include racial showmanship.

Ever since I swore to ignore trolls, I have had a great experience here. I have had some relapses, yes, but for the most part I have changed my mind: it's better to have a free-for-all. The same voices get dreary. And the only way to defeat bad speech and bad ideas in a free society is with good speech and good ideas.